M/S. Ashique Exports Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 18/2014-CE dated 09/01/2014 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, COCHIN (Appeals).]

For approval and signature:

HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes

M/s. Ashique Exports Pvt. Ltd. SBP 1/432, Pothikad Road, Poomala Post, Sulthan Bathery, WAYANAD - 673592 KERALA Appellant(s)

Versus

Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Calicut CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, MANANCHIRA, CALICUT, KOZHIKODE, - 673001 KERALA Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Mr. V. Ravindran, Advocate No.A-3, Alsa Claremont, 129 St. Marys Road, Chennai  600 018. For the Appellant

Mr. S. Teli, Dy. Com. (AR) For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 27/03/2015

Date of Decision: 27/03/2015

CORAM:

HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Final Order No. 21204 / 2015

Per : ARCHANA WADHWA

The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of lexus and olive brand of skincare soap and beauty soap. The dispute in the present appeal relates to availment of CENVAT credit of service tax paid on advertisement charges to the extent of Rs.2,08,167/-, during the period April 2006. Revenue has sought to deny the said credit on the ground that the brand names in question have been assigned to another firm M/s. Ashique Chemicals and Cosmetics and as such, advertisement services cannot be held to be a cenvatable input service for the appellant. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated against them resulting in passing of the present impugned orders by the lower authorities, denying the credit and imposing penalties.

2. It is seen that during adjudication as also appellate proceedings, the appellant took a categorical stand that they are the owners of the lexus brand of soap and they entered into a contract with M/s. Ashique Chemicals and Cosmetics for manufacture of brand name lexus only for the territories of State of Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. In terms of the License User Agreement, they have not surrendered their said brand name and they are within their right to manufacture and market the said brand for the other states. They also drew the attention of the lower authorities to the fact that they have cleared the said lexus brand for sale even after entering into a License User Agreement with M/s. Ashique Chemicals and Cosmetics.

3. I have seen the License User Agreement, which is for the limited states of Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. It is also on record that the appellants have not forfeited their ownership of the said brand name and continue to manufacture the said brand name for other states. It is a fact that they have cleared number of boxes of the said brand name during the period in question and even thereafter. As such, it cannot be said that the advertisement services received by them are not connected with the goods manufactured by them. In view of the above, I find no reasons to deny the benefit of the credit availed by the assessee. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant.

(Operative portion of the Order was pronounced in open court on 27.3.2015)

ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER

rv 3